aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Secondly, for you legals, was this decision today decided by all nine judges, or did one judge make the decision? I kind of figured it would have been 5-4 if all nine voted.

---

Went back and checked. Unsigned order but no dissents.

---

Does that mean it was 9-0, or is this something that only the Chief Justice would respond to? Since you said no dissents I assume they all get a crack to chime in if they want?

Tailgate88 said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

Quote:

---

Secondly, for you legals, was this decision today decided by all nine judges, or did one judge make the decision? I kind of figured it would have been 5-4 if all nine voted.

---

Went back and checked. Unsigned order but no dissents.

---

Does that mean it was 9-0, or is this something that only the Chief Justice would respond to? Since you said no dissents I assume they all get a crack to chime in if they want?

---

Yes, they can say whatever they want, if they concurred in part, dissented, etc. But what it really means is that the chances they grant cert. to hear this case on the merits is very high, damn near guaranteed.

But like I said, the equities here of exposing all of the witnesses who testified or provided documents to Team Mueller within a grand jury setting are just too high not to issue a stay of the idiotic DC Circuit order.

Thank you

No problem.

Ha.

You can view (but not copy/extract directly from it) the actual EC document for Crossfire Hurricane here:

https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/JW-v-DOJ-reply-02743.pdf

The second & third pages of the document are devoted to an email which was sent by the LEGAT (Legal Attache in London) on July 29, 2016. On Page 2 near the top appears SYNOPSIS which is the subject of the email and which is shown in the tweet below:

It was assumed by the LEGAT that Papadopoulos' comments made reference to the hacking of the DNC. Now read the rest of Pages 2 & 3; on Page 3 near the top, beginning with 5., there are over 3 lines redacted concerning something Papa said which was in the Downer report. Was it something related to the DNC hack? We don't know? But this is a new angle. Damn, why are we always left in the dark?

drcrinum said:

---

You can view (but not copy/extract directly from it) the actual EC document for Crossfire Hurricane here:

https://www.judicialwatch.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/05/JW-v-DOJ-reply-02743.pdf

The second & third pages of the document are devoted to an email which was sent by the LEGAT (Legal Attache in London) on July 29, 2016. On Page 2 near the top appears SYNOPSIS which is the subject of the email and which is shown in the tweet below:

It was assumed by the LEGAT that Papadopoulos' comments made reference to the hacking of the DNC. Now read the rest of Pages 2 & 3; on Page 3 near the top, beginning with 5., there are over 3 lines redacted concerning something Papa said which was in the Downer report. Was it something related to the DNC hack? We don't know? But this is a new angle. Damn, why are we always left in the dark?


Okay, I'm very confused. Downer? Halper? Gina Haspel? A little help here?

---

Papa's chats with the Australian Ambassador Downer & his assistant in London in May 2016 are what precipitated the opening of Crossfire Hurricane.

drcrinum said:

---

Papa's chats with the Australian Ambassador Downer & his assistant in London in May 2016 are what precipitated the opening of Crossfire Hurricane.

---

That's the story. But it has always been the story. So...nothing new?

aggiehawg said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

Papa's chats with the Australian Ambassador Downer & his assistant in London in May 2016 are what precipitated the opening of Crossfire Hurricane.

---

That's the story. But it has always been the story. So...nothing new?

---

We were first told it was Hillary's emails the Russians had per Papadopoulos, & later it was changed to dirt on Hillary, but the FBI Legal Attache in London begins his email with the statement he has received information about the hacking of the DNC server per Papadopoulos via Downer's report.

drcrinum said:

---

aggiehawg said:

---

drcrinum said:

---

Papa's chats with the Australian Ambassador Downer & his assistant in London in May 2016 are what precipitated the opening of Crossfire Hurricane.

---

That's the story. But it has always been the story. So...nothing new?

---

We were first told it was Hillary's emails the Russians had per Papadopoulos, & later it was changed to dirt on Hillary, but the FBI Legal Attache in London begins his email with the statement he has received information about the hacking of the DNC server per Papadopoulos via Downer's report..

---

Oh, okay. That's where the "logistical impossibility" comes into play. As well as the changing of the dates regarding Papadop's meetings in the Mueller Report.

Apologies for being slow on the uptake.

AG 2000' said:

---

Romney's tied up with the Ukraine stuff. If Biden and co. go down for it, so does he (and Pelosi).

He could care less about being spied on in 2012, it's about saving his own ass here and now.

---

EKUAg said:

---

AG 2000' said:

---

Romney's tied up with the Ukraine stuff. If Biden and co. go down for it, so does he (and Pelosi).

He could care less about being spied on in 2012, it's about saving his own ass here and now.

---

---

The wording of that scroll that Biden was listed as a criminal "suspect" is CNN level misleading as to what happened.

I have no idea if Chanel Rion is any good (although from what I've read, she's excellent), but damn, she is attractive.

Besides, she's only 30. Sheeesh

Doing my part for the thread, fasthorse.

Understood it was as a suspect and not charged, unmade.

Look at this!

Hardly a coincidence that the timing of Downer's tip/report to the LEGAT in London would coincide with 'intel' in Steele's dossier. This is important as it demonstrates how this scheme was coordinated. So was Downer one of Steele's chat-over-a-beer subsources? Or was Downer coordinating through his buddies at Hakluyt to pass this information on to Steele/Halper?

Who is Source E?

And, I have questions as to whether Russia hacked the DNC server?

Shawn Henry's recently released testimony asserts that information was exfiltrated but did not seem to implicate who did the exfiltrating. His testimony also raised questions about the FBI's claim that they were denied access to the server. Henry said they were not.

https://www.redstate.com/shipwreckedcrew/2020/05/20/has-susan-rice-made-herself-a-target-for-durham-probe-with-langauge-in-her-cya-memo/

Quote:

---

False statements by Susan Rice in her January 20, 2017 "Memorandum to File" potentially expose her to criminal prosecution....

---

Shipwreckedcrew has a discussion article about the Susan Rice memo.

Apparently we find out how institutionally biased the DOJ has been? That many prosecutors don't comprehend the law that SCOTUS has made pretty clear several times in recent years?

It appears that Steele's legal problems are going to get much worse.

VegasAg86 said:

---

Quote:

---

What is remarkable is the government's newly minted claim that Flynn's lies were not "material" within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. Sec. 1001 because the FBI did not, on the day it interviewed Flynn have a "legitimate" open investigation that it expected to result in criminal charges against him. The government's portrayal of the facts is an egregious distortion. The government did have an open investigation into Flynn, and not only was that investigation legitimate, the FBI was investigation Flynn for possible criminal conduct that went far beyond any connection he may have had to Russian interference in the 2016 election. The FBI also had ample reason to investigate the many foreign business relationships Flynn forged while working for President-elect Trump (and prior to that time) under its broad mandate to ensure that government employees do not pose national security threats.

---

https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6895871-Flynn-Brief-Final.html @3-4

In addition the the "egregious distortion claim", the first sentence of the next paragraph is "(t)he government's seemingly disingenuous representation of the facts . . .". Talk about a complete lack of self-awareness.

---

They know the selective Democrat narrative and not the all the facts of the case That have come to light. That much is clearly apparent.

Thanks for all y'all do! It's incredible, disturbing, but incredible the information y'all bring to the open. I truly hope many of the players will be brought to light enough so the average American can see it's time to hit the reset button on our government and especially the agencies.

Guess I missed this.

the way sidney retweets Huber it's like he's writing for her. Somebody is also feeding him/her info.

3 Toed Pete said:

---

I wondered aloud somewhere recently, I believe on this thread, if the original Flynn 302 would have been filed in Sentinel or whether it had never been filed and was being passed around via email between strzock, page, and mccabe for editing. Either way, there had to be a way to recover it.

Last night on Lou Dobbs Sidney Powell said that the original 302 has likely been destroyed by someone but that it would have been filed in Sentinel and there would be an electronic trail but that the FBI still has not done anything to recover the original 302.

Chris Wray may as well have been in on the original crimes as he has been just as guilty in the cover-ups. To be clear, that's my view and was not said by Sidney.

---

It has long been a mystery how that original 302 was emailed around yet seemingly untraceable at the same time.

My gut tells me that Pientka wrote up his notes that day but gave them to Strzok instead of filing them in Sentinel, likely because Strzok had to brief Sally Yates that evening and didn't want to go empty handed. That scenario makes the most sense to me as to how it wasn't logged into the system until February 14, 2017.

Here's why I think that. White House counsel, mindful of obstruction of justice issues, would not come poking around looking for the 302 since they didn't know if there was a criminal investigation happening. But, as the rumor mill and leaks to the press swirled around Flynn, there was the distinct possibility that Flynn would have his own attorneys knocking on the door asking for the 302 aggressively. Since it wasn't in the system the FBI wouldn't have to produce it. The whole reason for deceptively omitting the standard 1001 warning during his interview was to avoid alerting Flynn that he was under a criminal investigation and immediately lawyer up.

Also note that Flynn was represented by Covington & Burling who were grappling with the DOJ FARA unit over the Inovo deal during this time.

When you have a single executive in charge, actively interested in a matter, of course folks 5 levels down want to make sure they deliver the inside scoop to him as quickly as possible, and that's undoubtedly what happened here. Strzok was of course a happy minion for McCabe/Comey, to get that info and massage it as necessary in official paperwork to further the mission.

There's not really much mystery about it to me, other than why Pientka is still allowed to hide out in the field somewhere without answering to anyone.